Welcome to Gaia! ::

I read what you said.
Your argument has the quality of a school-ground child, and makes not a bit of sense to me.

None-the-less...You didn't seem to get the fact that my reply wasn't to your way of debating. It was to your opinion and how inadequate your argument is.

Your argument is flat out just opinionated.

Even if it's a little bit off topic as pointed out earlier referring to lower classes I'm not actually against saying I'm better than some others. Different people come from different classes and to call someone else a snob is just jealousy. Classes are more a mind setting than a legitimate division but they're there for a reason. While some have the luck of being born into some sort of nobility or wealth others still work to get where they are and the superior feeling is natural. Besides from that there are stereotypical opinions on wealthier people so there really isn't a victim no matter how it's looked at. Also just by what you said I would judge you don't actually have an idea of the hardlife and talk about it anyways which makes you a hypocrite. A bad one at that.

Neither do i.

As it happens, later on, I posted the entire source in JPEG format. Now you claim to have never viewed the source?

Goodness me~! Bias bias bias~!

I suggest to you all that you read the entire thread to avoid any bias on part of your reasoning.

Just to level the playing field ;D

It was verifiable. I told you it was from the University of Sydney Australia. You could search up the names of the professors on the first slide and voila!

Or did you think the entirety of the presentation was formulated? Conspiracy you say? Oh boy~!


Read it boys and girls. Read it. The bolded text. She skipped the pictures of the slide I posted and then tells me the source is not verifiable.

And then I put in a nice little insult. But then you are using that as an argument basically telling the rest of this guild: "What Anarcho said isn't valid because he insulted me crying "

Ad Hominem~!

A basic ad hominem fallacy goes like this:

Person A says X
There is something objectionable about person A
Hence X is false

or let me put it into context...

AnarchoManiac made this one post that argued something
AnarchoManiac then said "You may now begin to sodomize yourself." (which is objectionable no less?)
Hence the rest of the post is automatically invalid regardless of whatever was written in it

Smart

Might I suggest perusing through this guild which you reside in?

You might learn something ^_^


Well then, explain to me the criteria behind what makes a source equivalent to a crazy bum please ^_^




Oh, everyone was criticizing you in that thread. I was just the one most vocal about it. So I swore?

Goodness~!

Goodness me~!

How awful of me~!

But if anyone takes that little "PS" of yours at face value would be a complete fool to use an ad hominem attack to influence their reasoning.

Lets go back to the fallacy lesson~!

A basic ad hominem fallacy goes like this:

AD HOMINEM
Person A says X
There is something objectionable about person A
Hence X is false


AnarchoManiac made this one post that argued something
AnarchoManiac had quite a few of his posts deleted
Hence his arguments are invalid


Only a complete fool would fall for such a trick. Thank you for insulting the intellect of anyone who has read your post. Not even I can do that.

I don't understand why a source needs to be verified when it comes to a logical proof. I can see if it was something that couldn't be proven like if a "bum" were to claim to have witnessed a crime or if someone claimed to have some specialized scientific knowledge to back their claims, but whether or not the source of a proof is verified, all it takes to see if the proof is sound is a working brain and a small amount of effort. Besides, you can't just assume that the unverified source is any worse than Anarcho's own words and yet you are willing look at his writing. It seems to me as if you just don't want to read a university paper just to have something to write about in an online forum full of mostly kids. If this is the case, I don't really blame you, but at least admit that you just don't feel like spending your time reading a paper instead of passing it off as a decision based on logic.

AnarchoManiac stated the "source" proved his claim. The claim was one of scientific nature. Some random person handing a sheet of paper to me with a formula on it would not constitute proof, and neither does this source.



I am "willing" to look at his because i am rather forced to do so. The only reason i pay any attention to him is that he forces himself upon me.



First, to be clear, i have posted links to at least three "serious" pieces of scientific work in my topic. I am intimately familiar with each one, and i take offense to the insinuation i am somehow hiding behind an excuse. You might as well say i seem intellectually dishonest. As a matter of interest, it is worth pointing out this source is not a "university paper." AnarchoManiac said it was a classroom presentation. So the insinuated insult is completely based upon your failure to read.

As it happens, if the source was supposedly a piece of scientific evidence, like an actual paper, i would have read it for precisely the reason you mentioned.

At what point did the something start being called a "university paper" just because it came from a university? I mean, do you really not draw a distinction between a Powerpoint presentation and an article?